If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Sup dudes. I just wanted to say that I rather agree with Thi
This was excellently described, as clearly taking this position is arrogant in and of itself. To assume that you are smarter because you don't understand the rationale behind faith.

This I can almost agree with, believe me, I realise I'm being pompous and arrogant, this was the entire point of the thread, my feelings of guilt for this behaviour, and I have tried time and again to not be pompous and arrogant on the issue, but I fear I can simply do it no longer.

And it's not that I don't understand faith, I understand it completely, and in doing so, have evaluated that it is a completely ludicrous line of thinking. It's like saying the chair I'm sitting in is not a chair, because I have to have faith that it isn't, and ignoring all of the evidence to the contrary, that it is in fact, a chair.

And yes Coneman, being consciously close-minded and prejudiced does make you an asshole. I don't know if I'd go as far as complete asshole though.

Religion has nothing to take responsibility for. Religion can't take actions, nor does it have a conscious mind. You are confusing the religious with the religion.

Now you're nit-picking. Of course Religion as an institution cannot actively do anything, it's an idea, not a conscience being. I think it's fairly safe to assume when people say "Religion has this to answer for" they don't mean the institutionalised idea of having faith, has made a desicion, or taken an action, but that people have taken the desicion with Religion as their justifacation. This is such a non-point.

People often blame religion for the evil that people do, without even wondering if it actually is. 'Oh well religion was involved, without it this tragedy would never have happened.'
I would argue that religion is used as a catalyst to justify the actions of people already intent on committing these crimes. That it's used as an excuse, and that in a world without religion similar crimes would happen for different reasons. Now that's a lot of hypothetical if's, but it still makes more sense than religion as a conscious and active entity.

And the exact same can be said in the reverse, good people would do good things without Religion, but tag on Religious ideas. You raise a point I wanted to raise myself, people take the actions they probably would have taken without Religion, and justify it with Religion (war in Iraq anyone?) and that goes for the good and evil that "Religion" has been used justify. And again, nobody is arguing that Religion is a conscious entity. However the "evil" that "Religion" has been used to justify, will forever outweigh the "good", and it's being used as a blanket to justify the worlds atrocities, even though it may not have specifically been the reason for them happening. (though in some cases it just has, Religious differences has caused war all the time)

Well as far as I know the Irish conflict was initially a non-religious one. Catholics and Protestants were on both sides. It became a religiously divided issue fairly recently, like 1870 or something. It looks to me like it was political differences that spawned the religious animosity, and not the other way around. It looks more to me like you work from your conclusion, backwards to draw the analysis you want. This is not critical thinking, and it is dogmatic.

Honest to goodness, I meant to write "spawned from Politcal". I even mentioned in another post that Protestants were the first Nationalists in this country fighting against Englands political over-ruling.

I don't think I'm like this anymore, though many on this forum might think otherwise.
As I've grown up some. back in the day. I even use myself as an example. reflected on things that happened in the past. I have a better understanding of things now. At least I can admit it now. I have somehow caused this situation by mentioning how I used to act on here. how I've changed. I'm a relatively normal poster now

Free?... what? You never stated in your first two posts that you aren't religious. What you did say is that this is a dead end conversation not worth discussing, I was just trying to argue that it was, in fact, something worth discussing. That's all I've been trying to do. Considering this is the most productive and interesting thread in a long time, I'd say I was right. In fact when I said you may be offended by the thread, I didn't even mention that you are religious. I've seen more agnostics and deists offended or annoyed by religious arguments than anyone else. I did think you had a problem with the subject matter of the thread, because there are dozens of threads that are the exact same thing over and over, and I haven't seen you in those.

Yes, Budzy and For Real gave me the impression that they were offended by the thread. Yes, with just as little as they said. If they weren't some how offended and had absolutely nothing to add (besides insulting the poster), I can't see why they would bother commenting at all.

Originally Posted by Free?

The thing is: it took so much effort to make you accept what I was saying in my first two posts, that were so lucid and straightforward

The only thing you really said in your first two posts is that this is a worthless and repetitive discussion.

or was it just another attempt to sidestep my question.

What question is that?

Also, my mistake, there was this part in your original post that would imply you are non-theistic:

Originally Posted by Free?

I'd do it the same way as you guys.

In regards to WCM, a minor example, I find it hard to believe that so many people would be homophobic if their church and bible didn't tell them that they should be.

It's 7am and I have an interview at 2pm, I need to get some sleep. I'll be back later.

He's not as clever as he likes to think
He's just ambitious with his arguing

Pilz - that Dawkins talk you pm'd me was almost exactly what I needed to hear after posting this thread, awesome. His final thought rang quite well with me, and is essentially what I was testing the waters for with this thread, it's good to know there are alot more people inclined to Atheism, that as he put it "despise Religion" but are to respectful to actually come out and say it.

I don't think I'm like this anymore, though many on this forum might think otherwise.
As I've grown up some. back in the day. I even use myself as an example. reflected on things that happened in the past. I have a better understanding of things now. At least I can admit it now. I have somehow caused this situation by mentioning how I used to act on here. how I've changed. I'm a relatively normal poster now

I don't think I'm like this anymore, though many on this forum might think otherwise.
As I've grown up some. back in the day. I even use myself as an example. reflected on things that happened in the past. I have a better understanding of things now. At least I can admit it now. I have somehow caused this situation by mentioning how I used to act on here. how I've changed. I'm a relatively normal poster now

Admittedly my analogy was not the best it could have been. I'd plead time constraints but the truth is that I just couldn't come up with anything better on the moment. Also I'm a big fan of the work people are doing over there in Science.

I'm also not used to defending religion. In fact, quite often I'd say that religion has no need to be defended. I do, however, draw the line at the assumption - because that is what it is - that religion is indefensible.

Having said that I'd like to just specify that what I mean by religion is very particularly spirituality. The possibility of metaphysics, if you will. I am an atheist. I don't particularly enjoy it, but I do take a Voltaire-ian approach to others' rights to embrace this sort of path. This is completely different from a defense of Catholic doctrine, and I just want to make that clear.

Yeah I got you. And I'm pretty much down with what you're saying and Per too. I'm not on the "all religious folk are irrational and below us" boat. I just didn't want some people who don't know any better come in here and think us scientists have no idea what we're doing.

Because God, is supposed to be the creator of everything, and the Bible is full of...well lies, that our Planet, and us as a species are in some way special, when in reality we are simply animals, highly evolved animals, of the ape species, but Religious people don't accept this, because we were apparently created in God's image. Having life on other planets, would have huge Religious implications, especially in the extremely unlikely case that we found humanoid life forms.

Of course Religion would try to bend and change when we do eventually find life on other planets, maybe to make us the one true God's planet, or solar system, and tell us to purge the other planets of all life or something. For me though, not that I really need any more proof, but life on other planets would completely destroy any semblence of legitimacy Religion has left.

I've always assumed there's this "we-don't-have-to-know" part and that's where I'd put all extraterrestrial beings, maybe even on par with the evolution theory (which as a general idea I don't reject nor support). We don't have to know everything, sometimes ignorance is bliss, yet we keep digging really deep to find out whether things are true or not. It's totally human to do so. And as you say, finding humanoid life forms on other planets would most likely cause a little bit of mess here and there but I don't suppose it could challenge anything written in the Bible (or not to such an extent that it would shake the foundations of Christianity). Well, at least this is my "something is possible unless stated otherwise" kind of approach.

PilZ-E. Let's make clear one thing before I start. If there are any parts of your post(-s) that I'm not replying to, it means that I don't have problems with them, either it all got clear now, or, even more, I'm in agreement. I would like you to do the same when replying to my posts please, because the way you overlook rather important points of mine leaves uncertainty, whether you accepted them or just couldn't counter them and I would like if not to come to agreement, then at least to make things as clear as possible.

Originally Posted by PilZ-E

Free?... what? You never stated in your first two posts that you aren't religious.

As you later noted, I indeed gave a hint about not being religious, but why do you even mention this? Even if I didn't give any hints, there still wouldn't be any real solid reason to think that I'm religious. Are you trying to justify that at some point you thought I'm a theist by saying that I never denied that while I never agreed on that as well?

Considering this is the most productive and interesting thread in a long time, I'd say I was right.

Yes, I'm surprised thread turned out to feel so fresh and rich, I strongly doubted it will be like this, which I wasn't right about.

In fact when I said you may be offended by the thread, I didn't even mention that you are religious.

I have addressed this before, I said that it looked unclear back then. However, I'm kind of inclined now that you did imply that I felt offended because I'm religious.

For you to make sweeping generalizations about atheists and assume that they are all militant atheists who only concern is to convert you and shove it down your throat is just as bad as me assuming every religious person is just like Fred Phelps. Also, I think one of us missed the point of the comic.

Following that, I understand new atheism and adamant atheism. It may not be the same where you live, or maybe you don't notice it because you are religious. But a lot of it has to do with being defensive and fighting to keep religion out of our lives.

Anyway Free?, feel free to reply and talk about how stagnant and repetitive the conversation is, repeating yourself for the 4th time. I think it has more to do with you being offended by the thread than really caring about repetition.

Besides, it's been a month or so since the last religion thread, and this isn't exactly the same thing. Believe it or not, I am very interested in religious discussions and peoples opinion on this subject, as long as it doesn't become a flame war.

For the record, I have argued devil's advocate against agnostics and atheists who just want to be dicks. It's not only religious people that piss me off. Like I said earlier, I judge people from a person to person basis, everyone can be an asshole.

Sorry, but I think that you meant that. I mean, read it. While you talked to no one else than me before in that post, you imply that I'm religious and in the next paragraph there are two sentences: in the first you directly address me, in the second you say that you think I feel offended. Most certainly Budzy or For Real wouldn't take it as if you talked to them there. No normal person would see it that way. Nobody sticks a line of general approach[is it the right term?] into direct (personal) approach by using the same word for both. And sorry again, but saying after that you should've clarified sounds like a very unconvincing excuse you just came up with. I mean, it could be true, it just seems so very unlikely.

I did think you had a problem with the subject matter of the thread, because there are dozens of threads that are the exact same thing over and over, and I haven't seen you in those.

Problem? As if I haven't participated in those because I felt insecure? Or as if I avoided them because they were boring to me? Which one?

Yes, Budzy and For Real gave me the impression that they were offended by the thread. Yes, with just as little as they said. If they weren't some how offended and had absolutely nothing to add (besides insulting the poster), I can't see why they would bother commenting at all.

Trolls and even regular posters do that, throw a short meaningless line in a thread. Random comments without any clear reason aren't that rare. You shouldn't take it as if they do that because they're offended. Budzy does that all the time, and even that you've guessed right (bravo!) with For Real doesn't automatically make posts like these defensive. It was a pretty much blind guess. But even though I find jumping to assumptions like that pretty ridiculous, I can accept that you might do that all the time and it wasn't anything special. It's just my disbelief to your previous point I addressed that makes me doubt this one too.

Originally Posted by For Real

(wide open . . . )

somehow, i think the 'complete' part was accomplished a long time ago . . .

The only thing you really said in your first two posts is that this is a worthless and repetitive discussion.

But you didn't believe I was honest there back then, in the sense that I was really not fond of religious topics because I found them repetitive, not because I was religious, and decided to test that, did you?
I get it that you also tried to defend legitimacy of this thread (no need to explain it again).

What question is that?

This question: if you didn't really think I was religious, why would you think I feel offended by this thread?

You confirmed that (*as if*) you meant that For Real and Budzy together with me were offended by this thread, in your perception, but you haven't answered the main among three question which I just posted again.
Sorry if I didn't make it clear enough, I feel like I could've done better this part.

It's 7am and I have an interview at 2pm, I need to get some sleep. I'll be back later.

I hope your interview didn't include religious questions and the interviewer wasn't a dedicated Christian.

That was a joke.

I've used these lyrics to describe myself as well.

Hah! So I guess deep down we're just like everybody else then.

P.S.: I urge you to eliminate uncertainties and answer my questions that you didn't address from my previous posts keeping in mind what I said in the beginning of this post.

Last edited by Free?; 08-04-2010 at 01:23 PM.

Before you speak think about what you're trying to say.
Who else is there to blame for miscommunication?

Free?... what? You never stated in your first two posts that you aren't religious.

It was in response this:

You are correct. That's what I said in my first post, that what I had to explain to you in my second post... Took quite a bit to accept that, huh?

Pretend all the 'you's in this are 'one':

For one to make sweeping generalizations about atheists and assume that they are all militant atheists who only concern is to convert one and shove it down ones throat is just as bad as me assuming every religious person is just like Fred Phelps. Also, I think one of us missed the point of the comic.

The comic, for me at least, is talking about agnostic types who dislike both atheists and Christians and are annoyed by religious debate.

Problem? As if I haven't participated in those because I felt insecure? Or as if I avoided them because they were boring to me? Which one?

I was saying you seemed to have a problem with this thread. If you didn't why would you comment on it when you haven't commented on other much more repetitive threads?

For Real instantly came across as though she didn't like the thread, like it or not, that was my impression.

Budzy has hidden text that makes it seem like that he thinks it is ridiculous that it is even being discussed.

I'd considered replying to both of them individually, but originally chose not to because it would just be more flaming and result in the argument that coneman mentioned not wanting to bring up in the first place.

But you didn't believe I was honest there back then, in the sense that I was really not fond of religious topics because I found them repetitive, not because I was religious, and decided to test that, did you?
I get it that you also tried to defend legitimacy of this thread (no need to explain it again).

I believed you were honest in thinking it was a worthless and uninteresting discussion. I don't feel that entitles you to tell other people they have no need to discuss it.

This question: if you didn't really think I was religious, why would you think I feel offended by this thread?

If this was a thread on a different subject, would you have came in to point out how useless it is? Agnostics are usually the first to leave a room when religion is brought up because it annoys them.

The bottom line is, I made no solid opinion on your religious standing, it just annoyed me that you had nothing better to say than 'this isn't a topic worth discussing.' Even now, your only contribution is to argue with me over whether or not I thought you were religious.

I think our whole argument boils down to one thing, I shouldn't have said this:

Anyway Free?, feel free to reply and talk about how stagnant and repetitive the conversation is, repeating yourself for the 4th time. I think it has more to do with you being offended by the thread than really caring about repetition.

Just this:

Anyway Free?, feel free to reply and talk about how stagnant and repetitive the conversation is, repeating yourself for the 4th time.

We're ruining this thread, if you want more clarification or to discuss it further, PM me.

Scratch the latter For Real's posts because they weren't there back then. I can't really tell if you think that your intuition is a reliable enough source for throwing assumptions in internet with such confidence, without any sign of doubt, or was it just another attempt to sidestep my question? Yes, I think it's the latter, you just making best you can not to sound like anything you said might have been wrong.

A wee bit confused here. Are you talking to me or someone else? Well, anyway, when it comes to religious topics, I find the fewer words used, the better. It's an experience more than anything and ya can't get across that with words only.